This isn’t unique to my state, but it’s my first time encountering it.
Pennsylvania’s state government runs on a July-to-June fiscal year, which means that it was supposed to have passed a budget for this fiscal year by July 1.
It hasn’t passed one yet, and passage doesn’t look imminent.
This is becoming a problem.
It’s already a problem for our county, which has announced cuts. And it’s increasingly a problem for the college.
Based on previous years, we’ve expected the state allocation to cover a little over 40 percent of the operating budget. (The county’s figure is much lower.) So far this year, it has covered zero percent, for a difference of—let’s see, carry the three—millions.
We have reserves, and they’ve come in handy. But they’re meant to even out cash flow over the course of a year, to cover emergencies and to help with large expenses. They were never intended to supplant the state’s role in the budget. Our CFO recently had to calculate the number of months we could go without the state allocation, which is a number you never want to matter.
For those keeping score at home, reserves at a community college are very different from endowments at universities. Endowments are generated mostly from a combination of donations and investment returns, and they’re meant to “throw off” a certain amount per year to pay for other things. Those other things can be the operating budget, or scholarships, or facilities, as specified. (Endowment funds are a mix of restricted and unrestricted. Restricted funds can only be used for designated purposes; unrestricted funds are more flexible.)
Reserves, by contrast, are generated from operational savings and are meant to provide a bit of buffer. They’re almost always invested very conservatively because they’re meant to be liquid. Endowments can take greater risks because they’re intended to have much longer time horizons. If endowments are like retirement accounts, reserves are closer to savings accounts.
They’re crucial for cash flow because peak revenue times and peak spending times don’t always align. For a college on a traditional calendar, August shows high revenues and low spending, and October shows high spending and low revenues. That’s because students pay tuition in August to take classes in October.
Reserves can create perverse incentives for legislators. A legislator looking to pay for some other line item closer to his heart may see a public college with relatively healthy reserves as a painless target for cutting. But once reserves are spent, they’re spent, and one of the dangers of public-sector math is that even a single year’s cut can become a new baseline. At that point, climbing out of the hole can become a Sisyphean nightmare.
In practice, that means that public colleges have to perform a delicate balance with reserves. Save too much, and you become a tempting target. Save too little, and you may find yourself in a tight spot if something happens.
Right now, something is happening—or not happening, to be exact—with a major impact. The frustrating part is that the something in question is unnecessary. This isn’t the aftermath of a natural disaster; it’s collateral damage from a political standoff. The fact that it leaves us much more vulnerable to, say, a natural disaster doesn’t seem to bother legislators.
So, my request to the elected leaders of Pennsylvania, and to other states in similar spots: Pass a budget! Reserves weren’t meant for this.
Angelo State walked back some provisions of its new anti-LGBTQ+ policies.
Michael Barera/Wikimedia Commons
Directives related to a slate of convoluted and sometimes contradictory new policies prohibiting discussion of transgender topics and identity have left employees at Angelo State University frightened and confused.
As of Monday, conversations and content about transgender identities are still prohibited, but employees are allowed to use students’ preferred names, display rainbow flags in their offices and on their cars, and talk about lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer identities, according to emails from department heads to faculty obtained by Inside Higher Ed.
The changes were clarified to employees after a meeting between the deans, provost and ASU legal counsel. Employees are still seeking other clarifications. For example, students who are already working on papers related to transgender identity are allowed to continue doing so, but it’s unclear whether they could give a final class presentation on the topic.
Only some faculty members at some the university’s colleges have been told about these changes. Others are still responding to the initial policies handed down to employees Friday following a meeting with Angelo State leadership. The policies are stringent and exhaustive: no pride flags, no calling students by the singular “they” or using their preferred names (unless it aligns with their sex assigned at birth), no pronouns in email signatures and no mention of the fact that there are more genders than the two assigned at birth.
None of the policies are formalized in writing, and that is purposeful, said Brian Evans, president of the Texas Conference of the American Association of University Professors. The guidance only changed after faculty brought up questions about the policies, which deans took back to the provost and university counsel. Final details about what is and is not allowed and how the rules will be enforced are still under discussion.
A 2025 survey of 5,000 undergraduates by Inside Higher Ed, supported by Generation Lab, found that the greatest share of students rated their nutrition at college as average (44 percent), with an additional 30 percent describing their nutrition as below average or poor.
A number of colleges and universities are working to teach students proper nutrition habits and equip them to lead healthy lives in and beyond college.
The research: A 2023 literature review found that college students experience a variety of risk factors that make them uniquely positioned to experience food insecurity, including busy schedules and a lack of access to nutritious food.
Several studies found that students who had cooking experience were less likely to face food insecurity, implying that those without cooking or food-preparation skills may be at higher risk for food insecurity, according to the report.
The report suggests colleges can provide cooking and meal-preparation demonstrations to help students gain skills, as well as learn how to prepare low-budget, nutritious meals. One study cited in the literature review suggested adding nutrition education—including food budgeting and recipes—as a feature of first-year seminars.
Inside Higher Ed compiled five examples of nutrition education designed to address student health, food insecurity and malnutrition.
University of Memphis: Grilling Classes
To help teach students how to cook using relevant tools and resources, the University of Memphis staff hosts a lunchtime nutrition class, teaching students how to prepare and grill a personal pizza.
The university charges students $15 to participate in the class, which covers ingredients and lunch foods, providing a low-cost and casual introduction to basic cooking principles.
University of North Dakota: Culinary Corner
At UND, students get the chance to lead their peers in cooking classes. Events are open to all campus members, including faculty and staff, and the hourlong sessions in the wellness center teach students how to prepare simple meals.
In addition, UND has a virtual demonstration library so students can teach themselves how to cook a range of healthful recipes from wherever they are, including honey-glazed salmon, chana masala or acai bowls. Each demonstration video features a student instructor and a recipe card for viewers to follow along.
Lewis College, University of Georgia Cooperative Extension: Fulton Fresh University
This fall Georgia State University students benefited from a free cooking demonstration and nutrition course pilot hosted by two local institutions.
Fulton Fresh University, a partnership between Lewis College and the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension, typically educates seniors or those in low-income communities. But in 2024, the partners tested a new offering for college students who don’t necessarily know how to cook and are more inclined to eat quick meals or takeout, according to a university press release.
The four-week, no-cost course provided students with 10 pounds of produce at each session, in addition to spices and a variety of kitchen tools to keep.
Iowa State University: Culinary Boot Camp
Iowa State University students can participate in a two-credit course, Culinary Boot Camp, which provides nutrition education and culinary skills to promote healthy living.
The course, which has been offered since 2016, covers topics including storing food safely, reducing food waste, converting recipes and shopping efficiently for groceries, among others.
Cornell University: Get Cooking With Cornell Dining
Cornell offers students a chance to learn from the professionals: the campus dining team. Members host events in the Discovery Kitchen in a residence hall on campus, where students can practice preparing plant-based dishes, which they then enjoy.
The goal is to help students learn to make healthy dishes that are both tasty and environmentally friendly.
Do you have a wellness intervention that might help others promote student success? Tell us about it.
This HEPI guest blog was kindly authored by Pamela Baxter, Chief Product Officer (English) at Cambridge University Press & Assessment.Cambridge University Press & Assessment are a partner of HEPI.
UK higher education stands at a crossroads: one of our greatest exports is at risk. Financial pressures are growing. International competition for students is more intense than ever. As mentioned in Cambridge’s written evidence to the Education Select Committee’s Higher Education and Funding: Threat of Insolvency and International Students inquiry, one of the crucial levers for both quality and stability is how we assess the English language proficiency of incoming international students. This will not only shape university finances and outcomes but will have serious implications for the UK’s global reputation for educational excellence.
The regional and national stakes
The APPG for International Students’ recent report, The UK’s Global Edge, Regional Impact and the Future of International Students, makes clear that the flow of international students is not only a localised phenomenon. Their presence sustains local economies and drives job creation in regions across the UK. They help deliver on the Government’s wider ambitions for creating opportunities for all by bringing investment and global connectivity to towns and cities. Their impact also stretches to the UK’s position on the world stage, as recruitment and academic exchange reinforce our soft power and bolster innovation.
International students bring nearly £42 billion to the UK economy each year, the equivalent of every citizen being around £560 better off. International talent is embedded in key sectors of life across the nations, with almost one in five NHS staff coming from outside the UK and more than a third of the fastest-growing UK start-ups founded or co-founded by immigrants. As HEPI’s most recent soft power index showed, 58 serving world leaders received higher education in the UK.
The value of higher education is rising
According to the OECD’s Education at a Glance 2025 report – recently launched in the UK in collaboration with HEPI and Cambridge University Press & Assessment – higher education is delivering greater benefits than ever. Nearly half of young adults in OECD countries now complete tertiary education. The returns for individuals and societies in terms of employment, earnings and civic participation are substantial. But when attainment in higher education is so valuable, deficiencies in the preparation of students – including inadequate English language skills – can have considerable costs.
Why robust testing matters
Robust English language testing is, therefore, fundamental. It ensures that international students can fully participate in academic life and succeed in their chosen courses. It also protects universities from the costs that arise when students are underprepared.
The evidence is clear that not all tests provide the same level of assurance. Regulated secure English language tests such as IELTS have demonstrated reliability and validity over decades. By contrast, newer and under-regulated at-home tests have been linked to weaker student outcomes. A recent peer-reviewed study in the ELT Journal found that students admitted on the basis of such tests often struggled with the academic and communicative demands of their courses.
The HOELT moment
The proposed introduction of a Home Office English Language Test (HOELT) raises the stakes still further. The Home Office has indicated an interest in at-home invigilation. While innovation of this kind may appear to offer greater convenience, it also risks undermining quality, fairness and security. The HOELT process must be grounded in evidence, setting high minimum standards and ensuring robust protections against misuse. High-stakes decisions such as the creation of HOELT should not be driven by cost or convenience alone. They should be driven, instead, by whether the system enables talented students to succeed in the UK’s competitive academic environment, while safeguarding the country’s immigration processes.
Conclusion: Sustaining and supporting international student success
International students enhance the UK’s educational landscape, bolster the UK’s global reputation and contribute to long-term growth and prosperity. But the benefits they bring are not guaranteed. Without trusted systems for English language assessment, we risk undermining the very conditions that allow them to thrive and contribute meaningfully.
As the Government pursues the creation of its own HOELT, it has a unique opportunity to ensure policy is evidence-led and quality-driven. Doing so will not only safeguard students and UK universities but will also reinforce the UK’s standing as a world leader in higher education.
Your chance to engage: Join Cambridge University Press & Assessment and HEPI at Labour Party Conference 2025
These and other issues will be explored in greater detail at Cambridge University Press & Assessment’s forthcoming event in partnership with HEPI at the Labour Party Conference 2025, where policymakers and sector leaders will come together to consider how to secure and strengthen UK higher education on a global stage.
Nearly half of all students worldwide have engaged in online learning.
Online and hybrid education have shifted from emergency responses during the COVID-19 pandemic to permanent, influential forces reshaping education from kindergarten to high school to higher education. Once seen as supplemental, these models play a central role in how students, families, and institutions approach learning, access, and opportunity.
Full online enrollment remains rare in grades K-12, with just 0.6% of U.S. public school students fully online. However, hybrid learning is widespread, with 63% of students using online tools daily (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). Globally, nearly half of all students have engaged in online learning, fueling a K–12 online education market valued at more than 171 billion U.S. dollars (Devlin Peck, n.d.; Yellow Bus ABA, n.d.).
In higher education, the shift is even more pronounced. By 2023, over half of U.S. college students had taken at least one online course, and over one-quarter were enrolled exclusively online (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023; BestColleges, 2023). Adult learners and graduate students have been especially drawn to online programs, attracted by the flexibility and accessibility they offer (Arizton Advisory & Intelligence, 2023).
But the numbers alone do not tell the whole story. To understand the future of online and hybrid learning, we need to listen to families, not as bystanders, but as essential decision-makers, advocates, and partners in shaping students’ educational journeys.
What families and students think, and why it matters
Across education levels, families appreciate the flexibility of online and hybrid models but consistently voice concerns about academic rigor, social connection, and equitable access.
In K–12, parents generally prefer in-person schooling but want schools to improve the quality of online options (Barnum, 2020; Dong, Cao, & Li, 2020; Garbe, Ogurlu, Logan, & Cook, 2020). Adult and international students in higher education often rely on online programs to balance work and family demands. However, they face barriers such as isolation, inconsistent internet access, and limited interaction with peers and faculty (Kibelloh & Bao, 2014).
Research underscores that strong course design is essential for satisfaction and success (Babb, Stewart, & Johnson, 2010; Detyna & Koch, 2023) and that social connection is not a luxury but a critical factor in persistence and well-being (Tayebinik & Puteh, 2012). Equity gaps also loom large: students without access to reliable devices, broadband, or support networks face steeper challenges (Eduljee, Murphy, Emigh-Guy, & Croteau, 2023; Neece, McIntyre, & Fenning, 2020).
Families’ pandemic experiences reinforce these themes. Many described overwhelming stress and inequities that left them skeptical of online learning without stronger support and communication (Dong et al., 2020; Garbe et al., 2020; Neece et al., 2020).
Key findings: What families want, and what budget cuts threaten
1. Families are cautious about fully online. Only 11% said they would consider a fully online experience for their student. In contrast, about 60% were open to hybrid models, which they saw as the “best of both worlds,” combining affordability, flexibility, and connection.
2. First-generation families are more open. Nearly one in five said they would consider fully online, and 60% were open to hybrid options. These pathways can be lifelines, but cuts to advising, technology, or aid risk undermining that promise.
3. Income divides are stark. Families earning under $60,000 were twice as likely to express interest in fully online compared to higher-income families. Yet as state funding declines, public colleges may raise tuition or online fees, making even “affordable” pathways harder to access.
4. Race and ethnicity matter. Black and Hispanic families showed greater openness to online and hybrid formats than Asian or White families. That opportunity will only expand if institutions sustain culturally responsive communication, peer representation, and targeted support.
5. Generational and gender differences are shifting demand. Younger parents and female caregivers are more comfortable with online and hybrid learning. Demand will keep growing, but families may see online options as second-class without continued investments in quality and communication.
6. Region matters, too. Families in the Great Lakes and Far West regions were more receptive to online learning, while New England families leaned more traditional. These cultural and infrastructural differences should shape institutional strategies.
These findings show that online and hybrid education hold real promise, especially for families seeking flexibility, affordability, and access. But that promise rests on a fragile foundation. Budget cuts threaten the very investments that make these models credible: faculty development, instructional design, technology, and support services. Without them, families’ trust could erode.
What this means for colleges: Practical implications
The research points to clear takeaways for colleges and universities:
Flexibility matters, but only if paired with quality. Families want flexible options backed by evidence of rigor, outcomes, and strong faculty engagement.
Hybrid is a strength, not a compromise. Market it as a high-quality “best of both worlds,” not a fallback option.
Equity-focused support is critical. Expand device loan programs, connectivity grants, and first-generation mentoring to close gaps.
Culturally tailored communication builds trust. Engage families with inclusive outreach and visible peer representation.
Generational shifts mean rising demand. Younger parents are more open to online and hybrid; invest now to meet tomorrow’s expectations.
Regional strategy matters. Align program design and marketing with local cultures, broadband realities, and institutional density.
Ultimately, this is about listening. For some families, online pathways may be the only way higher education is possible. For others, a hybrid model that blends connection with convenience is the right fit. Institutions that understand these diverse perspectives and invest in the structures that support them will be best positioned to earn families’ trust and help students thrive.
Babb, S., Stewart, C., & Johnson, R. (2010). Constructing communication in blended learning environments. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 365–374.
Tayebinik, M., & Puteh, M. (2012). Sense of community: How important is this quality in blended courses? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Education and Management Innovation (Vol. 30, pp. 606–609). IACSIT Press. Yellow Bus ABA. (n.d.). Online education market size. YellowBusABA.com.
How can you assuage family fears about the cost of college?
After two years of reading survey responses and digging into the numbers, I have learned something simple and essential about how families and students navigate the college planning journey: most families do not walk away from college because of the price tag itself. They walk away because they do not understand what that number means.
What these studies, and broader research (George-Jackson & Gast, 2015; Marcus, 2016; Rainey & Taylor, 2024; Uperberg, 2023; Gallup & Lumina Foundation, 2025), show us is simple but urgent: cost is not just about dollars. It is about clarity, confidence, and trust.
Let’s start with what I learned from the broader research.
What research tells us about cost, aid, and college decisions
Across the literature, several consistent themes emerge about how families perceive cost, aid, and value in college planning:
Sticker price stops the conversation
Families often see the full cost of attendance and assume it is what they will pay. Most are unaware of net price calculators, or if they are aware, they do not know how to interpret the results (George-Jackson & Gast, 2015). This lack of understanding creates a “sticker shock” effect that prevents many students from even considering certain institutions, particularly those with higher published tuition rates. Research shows this disproportionately affects first-generation and lower-income families.
My takeaway: If sticker price ends the conversation before it begins, institutions must lead with clarity about net price and affordability, not bury those numbers deep on a website.
Loan fear limits options
Families are deeply wary of borrowing, shaped by personal experiences, community narratives, and national headlines about student debt. This fear often pushes students toward the cheapest option or away from college altogether, regardless of fit or long-term return (Rainey & Taylor, 2024; Uperberg, 2023). While many students still anticipate borrowing, the emotional weight of debt creates hesitancy, stress, and in some cases, a complete halt in the college search process.
My takeaway: Colleges need to acknowledge debt anxiety directly, offering tools like loan repayment calculators, loan repayment assistance programs (LRAPs), or transparent messaging that frames borrowing as an investment, not a trap.
College value is still believed, but proof is demanded
Despite concerns, most families still believe higher education is a worthwhile investment and a pathway to upward mobility (Gallup & Lumina Foundation, 2025). However, they are increasingly asking colleges to “show the math.” They want to see career placement rates, average earnings by major, and clear evidence that a degree will lead to tangible outcomes (Marcus, 2016). Simply promising that college “pays off” is no longer enough.
My takeaway: Institutions must highlight outcomes early and often— weaving graduate stories, salary data, and career ROI into recruitment messaging, not waiting until yield season.
Aid matters, but only if it is understood
Financial aid has the potential to completely change affordability for students, but too often, the way it is communicated undermines its impact. Many students and families report being unclear on how aid works, what types of aid are available, and how to apply (Rainey & Taylor, 2024). Complex language, late timing, and lack of plain explanations mean that aid packages often add to stress instead of reducing it.
My takeaway: Aid communication must be simplified, visual, and personal. Families need plain language, early outreach, and real-world examples of how aid changes the bottom line.
Revolutionize your financial aid offers with video
What RNL research reveals about cost, clarity, and college decisions
Sticker shock is real and misleading
Families often see the full cost of attendance and assume it is what they will pay.
72% of families eliminated a college based on sticker price alone (RNL, Ardeo, & CampusESP, 2025).
Only 12% of students used a net price calculator (RNL, Ardeo, & Halda, 2024).
More than half of parents still did not know their likely aid after visiting a college website (RNL, Ardeo, & CampusESP, 2025).
Students say: Sticker price stops the conversation. Families say: We are not asking for a discount; we are asking for clarity.
My takeaway: If families do not know the real price, they walk away before there is even a chance to explain. That is not a money problem; it is a communication problem.
Clarity is the new currency
Confusion about aid derails progress toward enrollment.
57% of students started but did not finish at least one application because “it seemed too expensive” (RNL, Ardeo, & Halda, 2024).
65% of prospective families say final cost (after financial aid and scholarships) is the decisive factor to choose a college, and 80% of students agree (RNL, Ardeo, & CampusESP, 2025).
43% of families have trouble finding a financial aid or scholarship calculator, and nearly four out of ten cannot find scholarship info on college websites (RNL, Ardeo, & CampusESP, 2025).
Students say: Confusion kills momentum. Families say: If we do not understand the process, we will not finish it.
My takeaway: Clarity is not just nice, it is currency. If cost feels hidden or complicated, families spend their trust elsewhere.
Fear of loans drives the conversation
Loan fear shapes how families perceive every option.
71% of students said loan concerns shaped their planning negatively; 8 in 10 still plan to borrow (RNL, Ardeo, & Halda, 2025).
72% of students, and 51% of families (69% of first-generation), would be more likely to enroll if the college offered a Loan Repayment Assistance Program (RNL, Ardeo, & CampusESP, 2025).
Students say: Debt is emotional, not just financial. Families say: We fear making a mistake that follows us for years.
My takeaway: Until you address loan fear head-on, families will see debt as a dealbreaker, not a doorway.
Families are involved, but often left out
Parents and caregivers play a central role, but they often lack the tools.
80% of students involve a parent or caregiver in college planning, but first-gen parents are less confident reviewing aid (RNL, Ardeo, & Halda, 2024).
Email is the preferred channel for all families (90%), yet awareness of portals and tools is low, especially among low-income and first-gen families (RNL, Ardeo, & CampusESP, 2025).
Students say: Families want to help but need more than a brochure. Families say: Include us; do not just assume we know where to look.
My takeaway: Families are the co-pilots of this journey. Ignore them, and you risk losing the student, too.
Technology needs a human touch
Digital tools can open doors, but students and families still crave connection.
91% of students use college websites; 65% are more likely to apply after a virtual tour (RNL, Halda, & Modern Campus, 2025).
1 in 4 apply after engaging with an AI assistant, but many still follow up with email (RNL, Halda, & Modern Campus, 2025).
Only 53% of families know about parent/family portals, with even lower awareness among first-gen families (RNL, Ardeo, & CampusESP, 2025).
Students say: Yes, we are digital, but we are also human. Families say: Technology helps, but we still want a person on the other side.
My takeaway: Digital opens the door, but human connection makes families walk through it.
Cost is not just about affordability; it is about perception, trust, and understanding.
Families and students are not asking for a discount; they are asking for clarity. When institutions lead with transparency, plain language, and humanity, they transform the way students and families see higher education.
Assessing research culture has always been seen as difficult – some would say too difficult.
Yet as REF 2029 pauses for reflection, the question of whether and how culture should be part of the exercise is unavoidable. How we answer this has the potential to shape not only the REF, but also the value we place on the people and practices that define research excellence.
The push to assess research culture emerged from recognition that thriving, well-supported researchers are themselves important outcomes of the research system. The Stern Review highlighted that sustainable research excellence depends not just on research outputs but on developing the people who produce them. The Harnessing the Metric Tide report built on this understanding, recommending that future REF cycles should reward progress towards better research cultures.
A significant proportion of what we have learnt about assessing research culture came from the People, Culture and Environment indicators project, run by Vitae and Technopolis, and Research England’s subsequent REF PCE pilot exercise. Together with the broader consultation as part of the Future Research Assessment Programme, this involved considerable sector engagement over multiple years.
Indicators
Nearly 1,600 people applied to participate in the PCE indicators co-development workshops. Over 500 participated across 137 institutions, with participants at all levels of career stage and roles. Representatives from ARMA, NADSN, UKRN, BFAN, ITSS, FLFDN and NCCPE helped facilitate the discussions and synthesise messages.
The workshops confirmed what many suspected about assessing research culture. It’s genuinely difficult. Nearly every proposed indicator proved problematic. Participants raised concerns about gaming and burden. Policies could become tick-box exercises. Metrics might miss crucial context. But participants saw that clusters of indicators used together and contextualised could allow institutions to tell meaningful stories about their approach and avoid the potentially misleading pictures painted by isolated indicators.
A recurring theme was the need to focus on mechanisms, processes and impacts, not on inputs. Signing up for things, collecting badges, and writing policies isn’t enough. We need to make sure that we are doing something meaningful behind these. This doesn’t mean we cannot evidence progress, rather that the evidence needs contextualising. The process of developing evidence against indicators would incentivise institutions to think more carefully about what they’re doing, why, and for whom.
The crucial point that seems to have been lost is that REF PCE never set out to measure culture directly. Instead, it aimed to assess credible indicators of how institutions enable and support inclusive, sustainable, high-quality research.
REF PCE was always intended to be an evolution, not a revolution. Culture has long been assessed in the REF, including through the 2021 Environment criteria of vitality and sustainability. The PCE framework aimed to build on this foundation, making assessment more systematic and comprehensive.
Finance and diversity
Two issues levelled at PCE have been the sector’s current financial climate and the difficulty of assessing culture fairly across institutional diversity. These are not new revelations. Both were anticipated and debated extensively in the PCE indicators project.
Workshop participants stressed that the assessment must recognise that institutions operate with different resources and constraints, focusing on progress and commitment rather than absolute spending levels. There is no one-size-fits-all answer to what a good research culture looks like. Excellent research culture can look very different across the sector and even within institutions.
This led to a key conclusion: fair assessment must recognise different starting points while maintaining meaningful standards. Institutions should demonstrate progress against a range of areas, with flexibility in how they approach challenges. Assessment needs to focus on ‘distance travelled’ rather than the destination reached.
Research England developed the REF PCE pilot following these insights. This was deliberately experimental, testing more indicators than would ultimately be practical, as a unique opportunity to gather evidence about what works, what doesn’t, what is feasible, and equitable across the sector. Pilot panel members and institutions were co-designers, not assessors and assessees. The point was to develop evidence for a streamlined, proportionate, and robust approach to assessing culture.
REF already recognises that publications and impact are important outputs of research. The PCE framework extended this logic: thriving, well-supported people working across all roles are themselves crucial outcomes that institutions should develop and celebrate.
This matters because sustainable research excellence depends on the people who make it happen. Environments that support career development, recognise diverse contributions, and foster inclusion don’t just feel better to work in – they produce better research. The consultation revealed sophisticated understanding of this connection. Participants emphasised that research quality emerges from cultures that value integrity, collaboration, and support for all contributors.
Inputs
Some argue that culture is an input to the system that shouldn’t be assessed directly. Others suggest establishing baseline performance requirements as a condition for funding. However, workshop discussions revealed that setting universal standards low enough for all institutions to meet renders them meaningless as drivers of improvement. Baselines are important, but alone they are not sufficient. Research culture requires attention through assessment, incentivisation and reward that goes beyond minimum thresholds.
Patrick Vallance and Research England now have unprecedented evidence about research culture assessment. Consultation has revealed sector priorities. The pilot has tested practical feasibility. The upcoming results, to be published in October, will show what approaches are viable and proportionate.
Have we encountered difficulties? Yes. Do we have a perfect solution for assessing culture? No. But this REF is a huge first step toward better understanding and valuing of the cultures that underpin research in HE. We don’t need all the answers for 2029, but we shouldn’t discard the tangible progress made through national conversations and collaborations.
This evidence base provides a foundation for informed decisions about whether and how to proceed. The question is whether policymakers will use it to build on promising foundations or retreat to assessment approaches that miss crucial dimensions of research excellence.
The REF pause is a moment of choice. We can step back from culture as ‘too hard’, or build on the most substantial sector-wide collaboration ever undertaken on research environments. If we discard what we’ve built, we risk losing sight of the people and conditions that make UK research excellent.
Higher Education Inquirer : The People Have Fought Back Against the President Before & Can Again w/ Prof. Corey Brettschneider (Malcolm Nance, Black Man Spy)
The People Have Fought Back Against the President Before & Can Again w/ Prof. Corey Brettschneider (Malcolm Nance, Black Man Spy)
By luck or judgment two separate regulatory regimes applying in the HE sector came into effect on the same day last month.
They are condition E6, the new condition of registration imposed by the Office for Students to better protect students from harassment and sexual misconduct, and a revised duty to secure freedom of speech within the law set out in the Freedom of Speech Act 2023.
Both regimes impose restrictions on the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) by HE institutions. However, their scope is slightly different.
Condition E6 forbids provisions which have the object or effect of preventing students from “disclosing information about an allegation of harassment and/or sexual misconduct, which in any way involves or affects one or more students” to any other person. These restrictions on NDAs were introduced as free-standing requirements on 1 September 2024.
The Freedom of Speech Act measures also relate to harassment and sexual misconduct, but the restrictions are not confined to misconduct affecting students. These restrictions extend to NDA provisions in agreements that prevent anyone connected with the institution, including visiting speakers, from disclosing information about a complaint they have made about misconduct to any other person.
In an ideal world, these two separate regulations would be better aligned, but in practice, institutions will be able to square the circle by following the more onerous of the two provisions in any given situation.
The regulatory guidance on condition E6 states:
Although this provision does not apply to other persons, providers should consider the wider requirements of this condition in applying such restrictions to other persons such as staff, and not to inhibit discussion of these issues that might support those who have experienced harassment or sexual misconduct, or allow issues to be aired and properly addressed.”
This suggests the guidance appears to anticipate the free speech measures. However, somewhat strangely, the issue of NDAs is not mentioned at all in the OfS’s regulatory advice on the free speech duty.
And there’s more
As if two overlapping NDA regimes were not troublesome enough, a third is now in sight. Amendments to the Employment Rights Bill in July 2025 (at report stage in the House of Lords) impose new restrictions on confidentiality clauses relating to harassment and discrimination (as defined in the Equality Act 2010).
Again, the scope of the targeted misconduct (harassment or sexual misconduct) is similar, but these provisions focus on workplace harassment and are confined to restrictions in agreements between workers and employers. There is also the possibility of exceptions being created by regulations, though we don’t know what these would look like yet.
So, the scope of the restrictions will be narrower than the current legislation universities operate under. However, the range of misconduct covered is wider as it extends to direct and indirect discrimination as well as harassment. Though this does not include breach of the reasonable adjustments duty or victimisation.
Bringing it all together
All three sets of restrictions build on existing limits to NDAs.
First, there are currently provisions that protect whistleblowers from signing gagging clauses that prevent them from making a disclosure. The connection between sexual misconduct and protected disclosures will be made explicit by another proposed measure in the Employment Rights Bill, as it adds disclosure of information about sexual harassment to the list of disclosures qualifying for whistleblower protections.
Many protected disclosures involve misconduct that is potentially criminal. It is already the case that an NDA will be unenforceable to the extent that it seeks to prevent reporting of a criminal offence to the relevant authorities or cooperating with their enquiries. These rules will be codified in a slightly broader form by provisions in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, coming into effect on 1 October 2025.
Secondly, lawyers involved in the drawing up of confidentiality agreements will be aware of the warning notice from the Solicitors Regulatory Authority, first issued in 2018 and revised in August 2024. The warning notice means it will amount to professional misconduct to draft NDAs that are not legally enforceable, or to obscure limitations in the scope of the confidentiality requirements being lawfully imposed by using obfuscatory drafting.
There are also broader reputation and compliance issues to consider. As a result, several policy initiatives exist to encourage HEIs to limit or eliminate the use of these agreements. One of the most significant recent developments was the launch in 2022 by Universities UK of a strategic guide to tackling staff-to-student sexual misconduct. The guide considers that the use of NDAs can inhibit the development of a culture which makes this kind of conduct less likely, and says that they should not be used to prevent “reporting parties from speaking out or to restrict what the university might disclose to others.”
The development of placing limits on NDAs has been piecemeal and inconsistent, but the direction of travel is clear. It is increasingly difficult to use blanket NDAs. Thought needs to be given to the proposed reasons for and the effects of NDAs in relation to any aspect of an HEI’s operations. It will rarely be appropriate to seek NDAs in relation to issues of harassment or sexual misconduct, and other (common) processes and approaches for handling such situations effectively with staff, students, members, visitors, and other stakeholders will be required.
Social media is a front door for student outreach.
Let us be honest: College planning is not just about campus tours and glossy brochures anymore. These days, it is about late-night scrolling. It is about finding your future in a 15-second TikTok or watching a day-in-the-life dorm vlog on YouTube, possibly squeezed between a skateboarding dog and a viral dance challenge. And let us admit it, none of this is mindless. Students make real decisions right there in the middle of the scroll, about where they belong, who they want to be, and what opportunities are out there (Astleitner & Schlick, 2025).
That is the story the 2025 E-Expectations Trend Report tells us. Social media is not a bonus channel for student outreach; it is the front door. In fact, 63% of students are on Instagram, but only 53% see college content there. That is a missed opportunity (RNL, Halda, & Modern Campus, 2025). Here is the twist: Colleges know social is powerful, too. The 2025 Marketing and Recruitment Practices Report for Undergraduate Students shows that enrollment teams rank social media, retargeted, and video ads among their most effective digital tactics. Still, when it comes time to pull out their wallets, colleges spend most of their spending on Instagram and Facebook, while TikTok and YouTube, where teenagers spend much of their time, are left underused (RNL, 2025).
Social media is where the search begins
The E-Expectations data shows that for 56% students, social media matters most when they start thinking about college. Before they ever request information or take a tour, they are watching you. They are searching for clues, hints, and maybe a sign that this could be their future home.
We know they are asking themselves:
“Could I see myself there?”
“Do these students look like me?”
“Would I fit in?”
This lines up with findings from the Pew Research Center (2024), which reports that over 90% of teenagers use social media every day, and platforms like Instagram and TikTok are where they are most active. More importantly, teenagers rely on these platforms for support in decision-making, including school decisions (American Student Assistance, 2021).
For first-generation and underrepresented students, that early scroll matters even more. Social media often serves as their first “window in,” a way to explore campus life and build confidence before they ever reach out (Wohn, Ellison, Khan, Fewins-Bliss, & Gray, 2013; Brown, Pyle, & Ellison, 2022). Maybe they are wondering if the dining hall food is as good as those Instagram stories claim, or if the students in the videos hang out together.
Your social media should say:
“We see you. We want you to feel welcome before you even set foot on campus.”
Yet, the 2025 Marketing Practices Report suggests that many institutions lead with brand identity campaigns, polished facilities videos, or rankings rather than authentic student stories that help them feel like they belong (RNL, 2025). Students are looking for belonging; colleges are still showing off prestige. That gap is where connections can get lost.
What makes students follow?
The E-Expectations data makes one thing clear: Students want more than glossy photos. They want real, raw, relevant content that speaks to their life and dreams.
37% follow colleges for student life content.
31% want “the lowdown” on how to apply.
30% are all about content in their major
That desire for honesty is backed up by research: High school students value user-generated content for authenticity but still expect official accounts to provide reliable information. The sweet spot is when both work together (Karadağ, Tosun, & Ayan, 2024). Emotional validation from peers does not just spark a like; it deepens their sense of connection (Brandão & Ramos, 2024). In other words, students are not just following but searching for a place where they feel understood.
Not just where, but when
The E-Expectations data details a crucial truth: Social media matters most when students start college planning. More than half (56%) are scrolling and watching before picking up a brochure or visiting a website. After that, social media’s influence drops steadily as they move through applications, visits, and acceptance. By the time they are accepted, only 21% say social media still plays a significant role (RNL, 2025).
The Marketing Practices Report, however, shows that many colleges still dial up their social spend around yield campaigns (RNL, 2025). That timing mismatch means institutions may miss the critical “imagination phase” when students decide if a school even makes their list. We want to meet them at the beginning, not just at the finish line.
Other research backs this up: Universities with consistent, active presences across platforms are far more likely to stay on students’ minds (Capriotti, Oliveira, & Carretón, 2024), and aligning posts with algorithmic sequencing ensures they see the content when it matters (Cingillioglu, Gal, & Prokhorov, 2024). We want to make sure we are in their feed when they need us the most, not just when institutions need them.
Human connections start with digital ones
Behind every follow, like, and story tap is a student looking for an exciting and safe future. Research on elite universities shows the highest engagement comes from Instagram content that blends professionalism with authenticity (Bonilla Quijada, Perea Muñoz, Corrons, & Olmo-Arriaga, 2022). Prospective students use social media to assess fit, culture, and belonging in admissions (Jones, 2023).
When we lean into authentic stories on students’ platforms, we can transform social media from a megaphone into a welcome mat. The 2025 Marketing and Recruitment Practices Report shows that social ads are effective, but they work best when they align with the raw, real, and relevant content students say draws them in (RNL, 2025).
This is what we should be doing
Institutions should aim to do more than hope students do not scroll past. Encourage exploration, curiosity, and the search for stories that sound like their own. Teenagers are not interested in polished perfection alone; they are looking for something real that feels possible for them.
You, as institutions, need to show up where students are. Meet them in their late-night scroll, not just in a campus brochure. Answer their questions about laundry machines and dining hall mysteries, as well as the questions about belonging and opportunity. When you share genuine stories and welcome every curiosity, no matter how unusual, you help students see themselves on your campuses.
Our collective mission goes beyond applications and acceptance rates. We want students to find their people, place, and purpose. We care about more than numbers; we care about each student’s journey. Let us help them write the next chapter, not just enroll for the next semester.
Be the reason a student stops scrolling and starts imagining a future with you!
Students are already scrolling. The question is: Will they stop on your story? Get the data, benchmarks, and practical recommendations in the 2025 E-Expectations Report. The late-night scroll is real. Let’s make sure students find you there! Explore the 2025 E-Expectations Report for practical strategies to build authentic, high-impact connections with prospective students.
Talk with our marketing and recruitment experts
RNL works with colleges and universities across the country to ensure their marketing and recruitment efforts are optimized and aligned with how student search for colleges. Reach out today for a complimentary consultation to discuss:
